Social Services Committee Report

Recommendations 7

• R1

  Page 46
  A more thorough screening of prospective jurors. (It was found that wives of lawyers, doctors, law enforcement officers, and teachers of criminol- ogy were frequently challenged and dismissed.)
• R2

  Page 46
  Use of Municipal Court judges and space more extensively, when avail- able, for Superior Court purposes.
• R3

  Page 46
  Court Consolidation. (The 1965 Grand Jury believes that this plan, when used throughout all court districts, will effect a saving in jury time and
• R4

  Page 46
  Additional court space and some additional judges, where needed. (As the crime rate and the number of criminals increase, additional personnel and more space obviously will be needed.) ROBERT H. STREHLE W. B. HELLER 65 SUMMARY OF GRAND JURY SURVEY Our interest in the Grand Jury system led us to conduct a survey to de- termine how grand juries are selected and employed in various counties in the United States which have a population of approximately 1 million. Twenty of the 25 questionnaires we circulated were responded to, 6 of these being returned by California counties. The survey reveals the following methods of selection to be in use: (1) nomination by Superior Court judges, (2) picking from voters' registration lists, (3) choice from lists of experienced petit jurors, (4) naming by jury com- missioners, and (5) naming by elected officials. In only two of the counties reporting, the Grand Jury foreman is elected by the jury members; in all other instances, he is appointed by the presiding judge. The survey further reveals that the term of office varies from 1 month to 12 months, depending upon State; and that Grand Jury duties in the crim- inal category extend from the hearing of all felonies (reported by 9 ques- tionees) to the hearing only of felonies presented by the district attorney (6 questionees), and in the civil category include investigation of county de- partments (all questionees California counties). One responding county invites suspects to appear without immunity, whereas nine grant immunity. Depending upon State, the meeting time of the grand jury varies from 3 days per week to 5 days per week. COMMITTEE Denman P. Gambill Patricia Yeomans 67 SPECIAL REPORT RECOMMENDATION TO SIMPLIFY WELFARE ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES September 15, 1965 Mr. Paul Ward Administrator Health and Welfare Agency State Capitol, Room 1020 Sacramento, California Dear Mr. Ward: The 1965 Los Angeles County Grand Jury has been concerned throughout the year with the problem of the continued rise of the real property tax. In our efforts to find ways and means to make recommendations to reverse this trend, an examination was made of the Los Angeles County Bureau of Public Assistance whose $400,966,530 budget accounts for 43.1% of the 1965-66 budget for Los Angeles County. We learned that $38,500,000 of these funds are expended for County administrative costs of welfare programs, or for every ten dollars disbursed in aid, more than one dollar is spent on admin- istration. Since it is obvious from the figures that Welfare is Big Business, we wonder whether it is Big Business efficiently administered. We recognize the obligations of society to care for the needy, the aged, the sick, the disabled, and the children, but we also real- ize that the tax burden is becoming impossible for many of our citizens. Therefore, if the needs are to be met, we believe that they must be provided under as efficient and businesslike a sys- 69 tem as possible. During the course of our examination of the Bureau of Public Assistance and the programs under its jurisdiction the follow- ing facts were brought to our attention. (1) Funds for all programs except General Relief come from both federal and state government. Both levels of government, but particularly the state, have a tremendous degree of control over the implementation of these programs. Each county is re- sponsible both for the administration of the programs as well as providing substantial financial support. (2) The State Legislature enacts statutes which define the scope of the programs. The State Department of Social Welfare determines how the laws are to be administered on the local level. The Department of Social Welfare has and is using con- siderable latitude in the manner in which it interprets the leg- islation passed in the welfare field. (3) No consideration is given, as far as we can discover, for the difference in size in Los Angeles County in comparison with other counties in the State when establishing welfare policies and procedures. In view of the fact that approximately 40% of the welfare recipients in the entire State live in Los Angeles County it appears that certain variables exist. (4) The State Department of Social Welfare made the election for all California Counties to participate in the "priority needs" Federal Program. While this program increases Federal participation in administrative costs from 50% to 75%, figures for Los Angeles County indicate that an additional 280 posi- tions at a total cost to the County of $361,650 will be required to meet priority needs yardsticks for adult approved cases. (5) The final report of the Welfare Study Commission included ten recommendations made by Mr. William A. Barr, head of the Los Angeles County Department of Charities, which call for simplifi- 70 cation of administrative procedures in welfare programs. While these recommendations were not per se part of the Commission's formal recommendations, they are vital to efficient administra- tion. According to our information, while seven of these points require no legislative action, no action has been taken on six of them. (6) Supervisor Ernest E. Debs, a member of the Governor's Wel- fare Study Commission, has stated that not one recommendation of the report, which was issued in January, 1963, has been im- plemented. In Governor Brown's opening address to the State Welfare Commission he offered the remark, "Recognize that at any one time, some worthy projects must be delayed. Some objectives must be for a time remote. But they must not be filed and for- gotten." We wonder whether for the most part if the entire report has not been "filed and forgotten." (7) According to all our observations, the costs of welfare pro- gams continue to rise, the paperwork continues to mount, the turnover of social workers, whose morale is undermined by the hours spent at paperwork, continues to contribute to administra- tive difficulties, and the time available for clients continues to decline. The 1965 Los Angeles County Grand Jury does therefore recommend and ask that the California State Department of Social Welfare immediately act to streamline the administration of existing welfare programs. A strong and vigorous beginning should in- clude the following: (1) Los Angeles County be given the authority to implement the recommendations of Mr. William Barr contained in the
• R5

  Page 64
  That all terms and conditions of the lease agreement be clear and precise to the extent that neither the County nor the Board of Retirement shall have unilateral rights which would place an unfair burden upon the other party.
• R6

  Page 64
  That the lease agreement be the only agreement, written or verbal, as between the two parties relative to a particular project.
• R7

  Page 64
  That all existing leases, with particular reference to those leases with the Hall of Administration and the Hall of Records, be renegotiated to reflect current policies including the aforementioned recommendation, and that excess rentals previously paid in excess of that which would amortize the project based on actual cost, plus interest at 4\frac{1}{2}\%, be returned to the County for deposit into the Accumulative Capital Outlay Fund. The purpose of this report is threefold: